from commissioner farrell. seconded by commissioner cohen and we can take that without objection so congratulations. next item please. >> number six recommend allocation of 3 million in prop k funds for [inaudible] communications base over lay signal system project and subject to cash flow and implementation of strategic plan and the money in 2013 and 2014 -- [inaudible] in fiscal year 2013, and 2014 to the prop k funds. this is action item. >> good morning commissioners. i am louis and project consultant to the authority. let's begin with this request with a little context. the context begins with the california high speed rail. as you know the california high

speed rail authority has the mandate for building and maintaining high speed rail in california and their 2012 business plan proposed what they call incremental improvements with blended system, and some of this investments of course are to be taken place in the peninsula. the segment in question is from san jose to the san francisco tranit train center. in april of this year the authority board authorized an mou between nine members stakeholders of the cal train and the high speed rail which you see in this list. and early investment strategy for the

peninsula corridor basically has two components, advanced signal system and positive flow control and the [inaudible] including the vehicles. that's a total cost of 1.5 billion dollars. and this brings us to today's allocation request. this is for the cboss which is the acronym for the over lay signal system and type of advanced signal system. there are many types and this is the one cal train has chosen to use, and this system is basically to track train locations and prevent unsafe movements and consist of on board equipment and weigh side equipment. the total budget is $231 million. the system in addition to improving the signals and safety has also the added benefit of shortening travel times and also reducing

gate down times so improving crossings for traffic. it has a variety of elements from data link communications and computers with digitized maps on the trains. one of the more important features is the throttle brake interface and take over for the operator if the operator is not stopping the train when they should be and basically slows down the train and stops it, and it also includes center facility displays and equipment. part of this program will also train staff and operator staff in using this system and update all the documentation and rules under which cal train currently operates. in october of last

year the peninsula corridor board awarded a contract for $130 million to sign and build the cboss system. this contract also includes the construction of back up facility. as it is now cal train doesn't have a backup facility that they can use in case of an emergency if they lose for whatever reason operation ability of the current facility. the contract received -- [inaudible] generally this year and so far completed survey of alignment. basically gps coordinates every 5 feet to mark the way along the way to help the location of the trains. they also define the project of course, and are also currently

doing tunnel surveys to determine what equipment maybe needed in the tunnels to support this system. the critical design is under way. the critical design is between preliminary engineering and the final design -- the design group has the elements of the system and how they're connected and where they're connected but all of the critical elements are decided upon. also concurrently with that they are looking for the proper site locate this central control facility. you have in front of you the current schedule. as you can see we're on the second item, which is -- >> what are the sites come to mind when talking about globalization of the facility? >> i'm sorry. i didn't hear.

>> what is being proposed? what is being thrown as potential site? >> they're actually looking all over. they haven't decided. they are looking for sites along the line of course. they have a representative from cal train here and maybe they can -- okay. we're on the second bullet of the schedule. october 2 to march of next year and you can see by the end of 2015 there will be operational acceptance. you see the funding plan. the project is fully funded. the second line here is the current [inaudible] powers board member

contributions which is 70 million of which san francisco's portion is 23.4 million. this application requires an amendment to the strategic plan. namely we need to advance funds from future years which significantly increases the financing costs. initially there were estimates of 2.6 but advancing them to the near future the item $10.3 million in financing funds, so we have this amount available and leaving a short fall for san francisco share. the peninsula board requested that all of the members remit the funds by spring of 2013.

the signatories are working on establishing an oversight protocol for the project. so the staff is working with the mayor's office looking for ways to identify the funds for the remaining san francisco contribution to the whole program which is $60 million is the contribution to the whole program, both for the cboss and [inaudible]. commissioner -- 7.5 for cboss and the rest for electricity ifz and they are evaluating potential funding sources and staff is looking at potential revenue sources for the san francisco transportation plan and that concludes my presentation. if you have any questions like i mentioned

earlier we have cal train staff also available for questions. >> thank you very much. we have a commitment to allocate funding for fiscal year 2013 and 2014 and 15 6.4 million. we are making commitments for future years. how is that impacting what is planned how the plans would be used? >> there is a line item for that. that's the same -- >> same line item? >> yes correct. >> how is it that we're making these allocations now and we still are 7.5 million short? that puts us at somewhat of a liability. money is hard to

come by. what are your plans with the mayor's office to find -- >> that's correct. it does put us a little difficulty situation. however this project, the cboss project is highly needed for safety, and therefore the safety kind of trumps a little bit the risk that we're taking because it needs to be taken care of. now, there is a commitment from the mayor's office to find the remaining of the money, so i don't know if anybody wants to expand on that. >> they're going to find the money. >> that's correct. >> great. so this is pretty typical of what i face in terms of investments in the region or in san francisco that may trump investments that are greatly

needed in the transit services that are greatly needed in my district, and i see the need to be able to look at how we fit in the region, and i support overall that as well as high speed rail and yet by supporting this i know i make it less likely to support transit services in my own neck of the woods, and that's -- i think that's part and parcel how it's very difficult for parts of my district and southern part of san francisco to really get the services we need. now cal train doesn't go through my district. it's close by. a lot of my residents from my district perhaps use it but there are other needs not being done, so i'm going to be supportive certainly, but i know this is the dichotomy i face

practically with every decision before this body that we're committing resources to places that aren't necessarily going to help my district and parts of san francisco that are needed. i see the director coming up. >> well, i can't miss the opportunity. mr. chairman, commissioners. assistant director. a couple of things. san francisco as the historic center of the region has had a long standing relationship with the regional transit service providers. it's not just cal train but also bart, ac transit, serves san francisco, golden gate transit. the multiplicity of providers is far superior to other places in it is region. there is a great advantage to the city in having that at our disposal in a sense because it

definitely result in the lotional advantage for businesses and for our universities and for our commercial life and so on. it even has effects on the value of real estate, things like that. there is always been a love hate relationship with the transit providers in the sense when it comes time to distribute limited amounts of resources we always think how we deal with the needs of the city itself and muni and its services and so on, but there clearly needs to be a relationship, and that relationship i believe firmly is more productive if we are at the table as a funding partner because then we have the ability to help guide the decisions that are made by the regional providers. i think in the case of cal train that is very, very true. it doesn't take away the

need to have resources to deal with the local issues and what your comment highlights is the need for a picture of investment that doesn't stop at just the local stuff but also looks at regional and tries to come up with a set of priorities so we don't have to make these decisions on a piecemeal basis, and one of the documents that we had put together in the past and are updating right now to help us make sense of the decisions is the san francisco transportation plan, this 30 year plan, that looks precisely at those issues, and the cost and benefits of being a funding partner to those, and then puts them in a context of the regional transportation plan, which is the larger sweepstakes how federal money is allocated, so in the end we wind up with a stronger piece of advocacy and

policy in transportation funding and allows us to capture more of the regional money and convincing the region to invest in high speed rail. we have made progress in that because the high speed strategy that the region has has bought into the strategy and we have initial phase of that until all of the funding is identified we have to make some early commitments, but there will be quite -- >> well, i can appreciate that by making the commitments now it helps leverage other funding from the feds and the region as well and there is a regional component as well, but we have another item coming after this and i know we haven't actually made a commitment from the mayor's office for uncertified funds of seven-point $5 for balboa park station although we are looking for it. the needs

are greater than we can list there and that is the nature that we see. i will be supportive of this but i want to call out the attention how we're faced with these tough choices that affect how we allocate local resources for even regional projects in which balboa park station -- >> the point is well taken. thank you commissioner. >> okay. any other parts of your presentation? >> any questions you may have. >> colleagues? we can go on to public comment. any member of the public would like to comment please come forward. thank you for your presentation. >> i am robert millbower in district 11. i appreciate the chair's comments about the dichotomy about making the decision when you have all

these projects lined up and few funds to go around, and just in the interest of transparency and i know there is a presentation on balboa park but what are the opportunity costs that we're losing here if we commit for this project and admittedly it doesn't have a direct benefit to me but balboa park is a day to day station that i use, and if you have been out there it's just a mess, so i want you to just heighten that we have to make these difficult decisions and sometimes we may have to reinvent the way we approach things. i'm not saying in this case because i support the goals of this larger project also, but i want everybody aware of what maybe lost in district 11, and i would like to have a sense of what the opportunity costs are going to be when we make these kind of difficult decisions. thanks a lot. >> thank you very much. any

other member of the public would like to comment? seeing none we will close public comment. okay. colleagues this item is before us. can we have a motion to approve this item and move forward with recommendation? okay. motion by supervisor kim and second by supervisor farrell and take that without objection. madam clerk our next item please. >> item seven is update on balboa park improvement. this is information item. >> good morning chair avalos, committee members. chufter fung with the authority. this is a status update on improvements to balboa park station. we are bringing this item. it's a multi-part presentation with participation of my counter parts at bart and mta. we know

there is high interest in the community and on the part of commissioners in improving balboa park station. the timing is also good. the authority approved funding from prop k and the life line transportation program and other sources for improving balboa park station. this is a chance to see how the improvements are advancing and also there are upcoming funding decisions including most immediately an application for the one bay area grant program. as i mentioned this is a multi-part presentation. i will start by providing background and context and then i will ask my counter parts to come up and talk about their projects. >> before you start let me just i was going to add some comments to begin with and i had a water spill on me and i cleaned it up and now i'm ready to go. thank you. i really appreciate this item coming forward. i have talked a lot about balboa park

station and we need great investments to go there. i see the station as full of amazing resources from cal trans to bart to muni. we have bike access, a lot of pedestrian access. a lot of it doesn't work well. it's constrained environment. the infrastructure is out dated and not much improved since the original design and structure of it as things were built. there were incremental changes recently and conflict at the site between the transit and transportation modes. i see one of the basic conflicts there. there is a sense that this site is maintenance yard, maintenance facility for muni as well as a place for tens of thousands of people go through on a daily basis either in their cars or on foot and bike, but mostly by

transit riders and that's the basic conflict, but there are many other conflicts that go on there. pedestrian issues are difficult especially if you're a person with a disability. there is limited signage how to get around. it's limited. we don't have electricity to run next muni there. the list goes on and on and it's something i committed time and effort to actually make sure that we can have something move forward. it's really hard to coordinate all the different entities from cal transes to bart and muni to work together. it's something i want to see happen. actually i have been working with many residents in my district and districts around the area and we have a advisory committee and i am excited and the membership being approved

by the board of supervisors last week and we will have the first meeting and that will bring coherence into how we're planning around the station and bringing things together and i want to thank the mta and the ta for bringing that together and i commit my office and working with the residents and departments to make sure that we can move this station forward into the 21st century and somewhere right now in the 1970's so we can do better and we will. thank you. >> thank you chair. you actually given a lot of my presentation. so with that in mind i will skip through my pieces and hand off to my counter parts. as the chair mentioned there are complex multi-interactions here. there have been efforts to improve the conditions via multiple studies that the agencies have been involved in. some improvement

ideas emerged from those studies and are under way or construction but there are more to come and there are funding decisions on those potential improvements, so just a quick update on some of the work that is being completed already. about a year ago the west side walk way was open and on the image to the right. that project was sorely needed and allows pedestrians to access the station from points north and west to get to the bart part of the station. the remaining item there is get those pedestrians to the muni light rail boarding areas and there is a project actually under way to make that final connection that bart will be talking about in just a bit. there has been a new crosswalk installed at the intersection of the 280 northbound on ramp and ocean avenue to help

pedestrians access the station from points north and to the west. i mentioned before that there have been previous studies by the agencies involved to really think about how we can improve this area and this facility. some of them have been funded by the authority and they have resulted in improvement ideas that are now moving forward and we will hear more about today. the work specifically that we will hear about today is the east side connection project that will connect the walk way to the sfmta portion of the site. bart is working on signage improvements and by counter part from bart will speak about that. sf mta has advanced improvements and funded by prop k and my colleague will talk about what they call the fast track improvements and other improvements as well.

finally there has been some movement on the idea of transit village on one of the pieces of land right around balboa park that is called the upper yard. sf mta will talk about that as well and at the end i will talk about a circulation study the authority is conducting in the area and give me details about that. the chair mentioned the new balboa park advisory committee so i won't talk much about that but i know they're constituted, pointed have been made and looking for a first meeting in january of next year. so with that at this point i will ask my colleagues from bart to give some updates on the projects that they're working on. >> chester just briefly. january of next year? we have a committee constituted. i guess january is not too far away.

>> it's not too far away. we have been in contact to get something done in december but my understanding is that schedules are a little conflicted so january seems to be the -- is that right? january seems to be the first available date. >>i thought we were still in summer. it's only two months away. thank you. >> hi good morning mr. chair and commission members. i am todd morgan and with bart and the capital development group. i am here to talk about our project under way and as was mentioned we're a year past completed construction on the west side walk way and well used these days. our current project -- let's see. i guess it's up on the screen -- has four elements. this is the base project. this project started kind of small.

our director has been involved in this. the director's desire has grown the project and the four elements up there are the crosswalk which is item one takes us from the west side to the east side and a pass through and you don't have to guthrough the trains or the paid area to get there. definitely needed and ada accessible. it would bring you to the other side of the station and where we would construct a new key stall and demolish the existing and the new and work closely with mta on this and that is element number three is the new key stop. element number two would be a cover to the new walk way and nice in the elements and it's going to look nice and not just

functional and esthetic is the intent and then you will see -- i will point it out, from essentially item number three to item number four is a salmon colored linear figure on the graph or the picture and that is going to be a new walk way so we will bring people over across bart for free and it will be a true ada constructed or accessible constructed and new improvement for the site and gets people walking where it's not such a great area to walk so that is our intent and that is our project. we are 35% complete on the engineering design. we have an estimate and design drawings and we are coordinating with mta on this. we started small but i

guess i am pleased to announce beyond the $2 million of life line money approved by this body for this project plus the programming of about $870,000 of prop k which hasn't been allocated yet bart is adding -- state share revenue money we're adding $5 million to the project because the need is that great, so that's our east side connection project in a nut shell and broad brush. >> so that east side project -- let's see. 2 million -- $8 million all together. does that cover all the aspects of the project and all these four? >> it covers those four. we have a few desires beyond the graph here and if i can speculate we will be adding more money to those as well. there's a